>>126671096You’re not defending a serious argument—you’re frantically stitching together cherry-picked studies, bad inferences, and smug cope while pretending it's airtight logic. You speculated that listening to classical music is "problem-solving," then retreated into correlations between g and musical preferences, as if that salvages your point. It doesn’t. Correlation does not imply mechanism. No study you've cited proves that appreciating a fugue requires high g, only that musical skill or preference might trend with intelligence—a fact no one denied. You clearly don’t grasp the distinction between technical ability, pattern recognition, and actual aesthetic experience, which is fine, but stop acting like your ignorance is a mic drop. Quoting a paper on auditory reaction time and claiming it proves aesthetic sensitivity is the kind of leap only a crank or a bad faith debater would make. As for Dutton, he’s not discredited because someone shouted "woke"; he’s discredited because he repeatedly publishes ideology-drenched garbage dressed up as evolutionary psychology. You didn’t “rebut” anything—you just declared victory in the most Reddit-brained fashion imaginable. If anyone’s coping here, it’s the guy rage-posting about ChatGPT while unironically citing Woodley of Menie.
